Peter Kirby

I meant, more, that I can't detail what the difference is because it is in the library near me, and thus presently inaccessible.

--
Peter Kirby

neilgodfrey

thanks for the clarification. will put it on my list of things to check/copy next opportunity i have.

jgibson000

Is that (i.e., uphold Schweitzer) what I did? I thought I simply indicated that Scheiwitzer said something about Jesus that Eusebius did not say. Sorry if that was unclear (was it?).

Assume away. But are you saying that Brunner was an exegete and Biblical scholar and not primarily a philosopher? Are you claiming that he was not influenced by, and did not propound a brand of, Hegelianism and that he did not view Jesus as a mystic who was primarily interested in the teaching of "timeless truths" and in the illumination/salvation of individual "souls" rather than one whose message was addressed to, and concerned the fate and corporate behaviour of, the nation of Israel? Are you asserting that Brunner's views on first century Judaism are not outdated and that the anthropology he propounds is not more platonic/dualistic than biblical?

JG

jakejonesiv

Thanks for the update.

No Robots

Well, exactly, and I say that Brunner likewise has something to say about Jesus that Eusebius and Schweitzer did not say.

Why would you stoop to condemning vociferously a book you haven't read when you have vociferously attacked this same practice when committed by others?

Brunner has made significant contributions to both exegesis and philosophy, without being limited to either of these domains.


He knew, understood, and appreciated Hegel. He was also critical of Hegel. He saw himself, Hegel, and indeed all of true philosophy as descended from Spinoza.


Absolutely he did view Jesus as a mystic. This is of course completely in line with contemporary scholarship (viz. Marcus Borg).

I assert that Brunner's views on first century Judaism have yet to be fully assimilated by contemporary scholarship. I am referring in particular to the roots of the Christian community among the ammé haaretz.

The division of mankind into two basic types, ie. the common folk and the people of spirit, is present in all traditions, including the Greek and the Judaic. In Judaism, this division is manifest in the dialectic between the people and the priests on one hand, and on the other the prophets.


Indeed I am. The best of our contemporary scholarship merely confirms Brunner's insights.

Well, I do. And I am not quite alone on this.

This is an absurd, off-hand calumny for which you provide no evidence. This is the kind of shallow, inane attack by which you have made yourself notorious.

robto

Another vote for Theissen & Merz. Not only a good rounded intro, but, unlike every other "historical Jesus" book I have read, it actually lists some of the mythicist arguments and attempts to answer them. Not very convincing or complete answers, IMO, but better than none at all.

jgibson000

Fine.

Did I say I didn't read it? And I didn't stoop to anything. I stated what I considered to be an accurate evaluation of the book vis a vis the question of its value for HJ studies.

Please name a recognized contribution he has made to exegesis.

The type of mystic that Marcus Borg believes Jesus to have been (let alone the type of mysticism he engaged in and what he came to know and preach on the basis of his mysticism) has nothing in common with the type of mystic/mysticism/resultant preaching Brunner thought Jesus was/engaged in/taught. Besides that, Borg claims that a being a mystic is hardly the only thing Jesus was.

That's convenient. If it hasn't been assimilated, what is the reason for this?

Would you care to back this claim up? Can you name any contemporary expert in first century Judaism who quotes Brunner and/or says that he was right?

Who else -- especially among HJ scholars and experts in NT studies?

JG

No Robots

Recognized? By whom? By the academics who have completely ignored him? By the ecclesiastics who hate his guts? By the sceptics who can't stand him?

Please specify wherein lies the difference between Brunner and Borg as concerns Christ as mystic.


Ecclesiastic dogmatism and academic egoism.

No one cites Brunner. But if you read him, you see that all his arguments are supported by subsequent scholarship.

Like I said, Brunner has been completely ignored by scholars, except for Miskotte in 1932. But here is something from Yehudi Menuhin:

One of the greatest books on the subject of Jesus was written by a man whom I adopted early on as my favourite philosopher, Constantin Brunner (a nom de plume, his actual name being Wertheimer), a Berlin Jew who held Spinoza in very high regard. I found his book Unser Christus to be one of the most inspiring books I had ever read. It has been published in an English translation thanks to help from various sources, in particular from Günter Henle, a German friend of mine and, with the fortune of one of the German steel firms behind him, a great patron of the arts. I had but to mention to him the fact that since Brunner’s books had been burnt by the Nazis the Germans owed it to humanity to have them republished, for him to respond immediately. (Unfinished Journey (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 456)

neilgodfrey

This is not the first time F.F.Bruce has been recommended my way for its discussion of the Testimonium Flavianum in the context of the HJ. I did read it. And also wrote about it -- but what I wrote is a bit lengthy, and this is a well-worn topic. But for those who have not yet had a chance to take up this advice to read Bruce's treatment of the TF you might like to be forewarned by my experience with this "sturdy" study that should be read "if for nothing else" than its discussion of the TF! (In case you missed it above, here 'tis again.)

Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

mountainman

Nice article. I am just about to post a thread
about Kerry Shirts, "Did Josephus Mention Jesus?"
and it would be interesting for you to also take
on board, in your survey, this opinion.